Britain - the French perspective

31 Jan 2009

Quote by flower411
Maybe we can all agree that there is no perfect country - except perhaps in our childhood memories.
And having a 'my country is better than yours because - - - - ' competition is just plain childish.
You can come up with ANYTHING you like or do not like about a country and someone else can counter it.
And keeping going is an exercise in futility.

I spent some time living in rural France and some time living in rural England ....
The people are similar ...VERY similar ...
My time in rural France was spent in Perigord and my time in rural England was spent in Yorkshire..
In one place it was rainy and misty and wet most of the time and in the other there were proper seasons ...Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter...
I know where I`d rather be and it`s got fuck all to do with politics or character of the inhabitants... wink

They do say, home is where the heart is. biggrin

:D:D:D

31 Jan 2009

I could feel the warm glow from here lol

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

1 Feb 2009

Quote by GnV
I'm really not sure what substance(s) some of you are on but let me say this..

The same could be said for you ;-)

Quote by GnV
I have fought against Socialism and Governance by a Labour led administration since I joined the Conservatives at the age of 18. That, and that alone, is my clear motive for what is described by others as an "anti-British" campaign.

You should have fucked off to France when you were 18 then rolleyes

Quote by GnV
The fact I now live in France (which is essentially a socialist, Catholic Country) has nothing whatsoever to do with me abhorring the Commissar Brown and his feeble machinations at saving the world from financial crisis whilst at the same time selling the people of Britain a dead donkey.

And he's Prime Minister in case it had escaped your attention :roll:

1 Feb 2009

Quote by Steve
I'm really not sure what substance(s) some of you are on but let me say this..

The same could be said for you ;-)

Quote by GnV
I have fought against Socialism and Governance by a Labour led administration since I joined the Conservatives at the age of 18. That, and that alone, is my clear motive for what is described by others as an "anti-British" campaign.

You should have fucked off to France when you were 18 then rolleyes

Quote by GnV
The fact I now live in France (which is essentially a socialist, Catholic Country) has nothing whatsoever to do with me abhorring the Commissar Brown and his feeble machinations at saving the world from financial crisis whilst at the same time selling the people of Britain a dead donkey.

And he's Prime Minister in case it had escaped your attention :roll:
I don't normally respond to personal invective Steve but in your case, since we go back a long way, I'll make an exception as allowances often have to be made for people of your disposition.
From your posting you can can clearly see why people don't bother posting in the Forum any more :shock: :roll:

1 Feb 2009

GnV You are saying you are a Tory and I would like to quote you here “The people of Britain are now hamstrung by their debt culture.”
Wasn’t it Margret Thatcher that drove people that way by giving in some case people the right to buy, that have lived in their council houses for 10 years paid by the state?
Surely that is an action telling people you can have what you can’t really afford.
Before that it was unions telling people they were worth more than what they were getting, when in fact they should have just been about to help people have a voice against big corporate companies where as an employee you are but a number.
Do not both the examples above lead people to think we are worth more in a monetary sense and think only of our own self gain?
I have yet to find a party that in one way or another that doesn’t false and use what our party can do for YOU!!
Once I see a party that makes people believe in themselves but that isn’t all about person monetary gain and selfishness, I am a lost Brit but then I think I would be lost in every country in the world.
I love living in Britain as I like the diversity of people that live here.
I believe out tolerance as a race to other races is second to no other country.
Call me stupid as really I have not idea about politics all I know is who I am and what I like.

1 Feb 2009

The "right to buy" issue is an interesting one; what that gave to Council tenants was the ability to buy their house at a discounted rate (according to the length of their tenancy I believe) and in many cases they paid no more in mortgage payments than they did in rent but with a stake in the equity.
The debt culture to which I refer is the over-extension of credit fuelled by greedy and irresponsible bankers.
The Thatcher Government, in providing the "right to buy", gave people more of a sense of belonging in their community and greater choices on their future.

1 Feb 2009

The "right to buy" issue is an interesting one; what that gave to Council tenants was the ability to buy their house at a discounted rate (according to the length of their tenancy I believe) and in many cases they paid no more in mortgage payments than they did in rent but with a stake in the equity.
Possibly that was the intent, I am not against in some cases people that had the right to buy, but those I agree with would have lived in those properties for a number of years 20+ years but then that would have meant being in their 40’s+ before taking out a commitment of a mortgage with then a debt for the next 25 years over your head.
What I also saw in these times were people that had state paying for their rent finding ways to raise the mortgage, family clubbing together finding ways to pick up something that would give them some sure investments and a money return at the end, it was a money driven frenzy. But if you can not afford it you can have it, said Thatcher in some peoples eyes, so people nad banks found a way to have.
The debt culture to which I refer is the over-extension of credit fuelled by greedy and irresponsible bankers.
You can’t just blame one fraction you have to in my eyes look at the bigger picture.
The Thatcher Government, in providing the "right to buy", gave people more of a sense of belonging in their community and greater choices on their future.
II believe it gave people the chance to cash in on a windfall then sell up with a profit to move out of the communities, haven’t you seen in history people unite when things are at their lowest ebb. I believe people had more a sense of community during the war when many had very little but compassion for their fellow man.
I don’t agree with war, why can we not have that same sense of community in better times and appreciate what we have, instead of having more and moaning?

1 Feb 2009

OOh this is an unlimited hornets nest.........I will keep it short and just say that the biggest fault with this wonderful country is that all the people that dont like it here havent left yet. Without them it would be a nicer place.

1 Feb 2009

Quote by Steve
I'm really not sure what substance(s) some of you are on but let me say this..

The same could be said for you ;-)

Quote by GnV
I have fought against Socialism and Governance by a Labour led administration since I joined the Conservatives at the age of 18. That, and that alone, is my clear motive for what is described by others as an "anti-British" campaign.

You should have fucked off to France when you were 18 then rolleyes

Quote by GnV
The fact I now live in France (which is essentially a socialist, Catholic Country) has nothing whatsoever to do with me abhorring the Commissar Brown and his feeble machinations at saving the world from financial crisis whilst at the same time selling the people of Britain a dead donkey.

And he's Prime Minister in case it had escaped your attention :roll:
I always thought a Prime Minister was one that was elected, by due process. Not one that was " given " the job.
Still will not be too long to wait, for him to kicked out of office.

1 Feb 2009

Quote by Theladyisaminx
The "right to buy" issue is an interesting one; what that gave to Council tenants was the ability to buy their house at a discounted rate (according to the length of their tenancy I believe) and in many cases they paid no more in mortgage payments than they did in rent but with a stake in the equity.
Possibly that was the intent, I am not against in some cases people that had the right to buy, but those I agree with would have lived in those properties for a number of years 20+ years but then that would have meant being in their 40’s+ before taking out a commitment of a mortgage with then a debt for the next 25 years over your head.
What I also saw in these times were people that had state paying for their rent finding ways to raise the mortgage, family clubbing together finding ways to pick up something that would give them some sure investments and a money return at the end, it was a money driven frenzy. But if you can not afford it you can have it, said Thatcher in some peoples eyes, so people nad banks found a way to have.
The debt culture to which I refer is the over-extension of credit fuelled by greedy and irresponsible bankers.
You can’t just blame one fraction you have to in my eyes look at the bigger picture.
The Thatcher Government, in providing the "right to buy", gave people more of a sense of belonging in their community and greater choices on their ]
II believe it gave people the chance to cash in on a windfall then sell up with a profit to move out of the communities, haven’t you seen in history people unite when things are at their lowest ebb. I believe people had more a sense of community during the war when many had very little but compassion for their fellow man.
I don’t agree with war, why can we not have that same sense of community in better times and appreciate what we have, instead of having more and moaning?

That is so not true.
People only had to live in a propery for six years before getting a " full discount ". I knew of plenty of people where they were still in their 20's, who brought their homes under the right to buy scheme.
To say they then " cashed " in on their windfall, is a bit of an over exageration. What it did do, is it gave people the right to own something, that for years the " average " person was never going to be able to do. Thatcher gave the " average " person the chance to own their own home. Which is probably the biggest thing anyone can do.
You say in " some cases ", what cases would they be then?
The " right to buy " was probably one of the best things Thatcher did for the " ordinary " people. She gave them a sense of being and a sense of being proud, that " ordinary folks " could actullay own their own homes. Millions of people benefited from that and still do.
The state of this country is not down to people who have brought their own homes under that scheme. A lot of people have lost their homes through other issues, NOT because they had a chance and then blew it.

1 Feb 2009

I always thought that the Prime Minister was the leader of the political party that has been elected. The country does not elect a Prime Minister, it elects MPs.

1 Feb 2009

Quote by GnV
I'm really not sure what substance(s) some of you are on but let me say this..

The same could be said for you ;-)

Quote by GnV
I have fought against Socialism and Governance by a Labour led administration since I joined the Conservatives at the age of 18. That, and that alone, is my clear motive for what is described by others as an "anti-British" campaign.

You should have fucked off to France when you were 18 then rolleyes

Quote by GnV
The fact I now live in France (which is essentially a socialist, Catholic Country) has nothing whatsoever to do with me abhorring the Commissar Brown and his feeble machinations at saving the world from financial crisis whilst at the same time selling the people of Britain a dead donkey.

And he's Prime Minister in case it had escaped your attention :roll:
I don't normally respond to personal invective Steve but in your case, since we go back a long way, I'll make an exception as allowances often have to be made for people of your disposition.
From your posting you can can clearly see why people don't bother posting in the Forum any more :shock: :roll:
I do believe you were the one who made it personal by making comment about not knowing what substance(s) some people are on.....
And by constantly slagging this country you alsao make it personal to a lot of others to....
Its just they possibly cant be arsed to grace your comments with a reply....

1 Feb 2009

Quote by northwest-cpl
I always thought that the Prime Minister was the leader of the political party that has been elected. The country does not elect a Prime Minister, it elects MPs.

That is true but.....a lot of people, rightly or wrongly put their x on the ballot paper for the leader of that party.
When you get debates on the telly you nearly always tend to get the " leaders " of their parties, telling about their manifestos. Not some obscure MP from Oldham.
So people DO tend to vote for the party leader, and on that basis many many people voted for Blair and not Brown.
Of course we live in such a wonderful democratic country, that it was very clear, that any MP who was going to enter into a showdown with Brown, with regard to the Labour leadership, would have been politically finished had they of lost. So because they did not want to do that, Brown just " walked " into the job.
It may be law, but hardly democratic now, is it?

1 Feb 2009

Quote by northwest-cpl
I always thought that the Prime Minister was the leader of the political party that has been elected. The country does not elect a Prime Minister, it elects MPs.

That is true.
However, it is usually the case that the leader of the party is elected so. In the case of Borrown, he was handed the leadership in a way befitting a banana republic hence my reference to him as a commissar. Contestants for the party leadership were made very aware that to challenge him would put a end to their political career.

1 Feb 2009

Quote by GnV
Contestants for the party leadership were made very aware that to challenge him would put a end to their political career.

Unless, of course, they had won. Would Thatcher's political career have survived if she had lost the leadership election?
There can only be a leadership election if there are two or more candidates. If there was not a strong enough member of the Labour party to oppose Brown then the lack of an election can hardly be considered Brown's fault.

1 Feb 2009

Quote by steve
I do believe you were the one who made it personal by making comment about not knowing what substance(s) some people are on.....

well of course, I forgot you are so perfect in every way and never make anything personal wink

1 Feb 2009

Quote by northwest-cpl
Contestants for the party leadership were made very aware that to challenge him would put a end to their political career.

Unless, of course, they had won. Would Thatcher's political career have survived if she had lost the leadership election?
There can only be a leadership election if there are two or more candidates. If there was not a strong enough member of the Labour party to oppose Brown then the lack of an election can hardly be considered Brown's fault.
Brown is a political thug. I'm sure there were others well capable of taking the leadership but Brown had been promised it by Bliar... despite Bliar denying that he would do other than the full term :shock:

1 Feb 2009

Quote by GnV
I do believe you were the one who made it personal by making comment about not knowing what substance(s) some people are on.....

well of course, I forgot you are so perfect in every way and never make anything personal wink

:laughabove: :laughabove:
Whatever you say rolleyes

1 Feb 2009

Quote by kentswingers777
I always thought that the Prime Minister was the leader of the political party that has been elected. The country does not elect a Prime Minister, it elects MPs.

That is true but.....a lot of people, rightly or wrongly put their x on the ballot paper for the leader of that party.
When you get debates on the telly you nearly always tend to get the " leaders " of their parties, telling about their manifestos. Not some obscure MP from Oldham.
So people DO tend to vote for the party leader, and on that basis many many people voted for Blair and not Brown.
Of course we live in such a wonderful democratic country, that it was very clear, that any MP who was going to enter into a showdown with Brown, with regard to the Labour leadership, would have been politically finished had they of lost. So because they did not want to do that, Brown just " walked " into the job.
It may be law, but hardly democratic now, is it?
One person, one vote to elect an MP. It can't get more democratic than that. But don't let facts get in the way of an opinion. If someone doesn't know who or what they are voting for then that is hardly the fault of those standing for election.
Surely all the Labour MPs that didn't stand against Brown because they were worried about ruining their political careers were 'bottlers'. They were clearly more worried about the possibilities of defeat than victory. Just as well none of them stood and won the election then. Be grateful that you've got 'Bottler' Brown and not someone worse?

1 Feb 2009

Quote by GnV
Contestants for the party leadership were made very aware that to challenge him would put a end to their political career.

Unless, of course, they had won. Would Thatcher's political career have survived if she had lost the leadership election?
There can only be a leadership election if there are two or more candidates. If there was not a strong enough member of the Labour party to oppose Brown then the lack of an election can hardly be considered Brown's fault.
Brown is a political thug. I'm sure there were others well capable of taking the leadership but Brown had been promised it by Bliar... despite Bliar denying that he would do other than the full term :shock:
ERR...where was you on election day then...MR Blair made it quite clear from the onset, that if re-elected it would be his last term in office and he would not see it through to another general election... At the very least get your facts right.

northwest____cpl

Sex God

1 Feb 2009

Quote by GnV
I'm sure there were others well capable of taking the leadership but Brown had been promised it by Bliar... despite Bliar denying that he would do other than the full term :shock:

So why didn't any of these better people stand? Surely not because they put their own career in front of their beliefs?

GnV

Sex God

1 Feb 2009

Quote by deancannock
Contestants for the party leadership were made very aware that to challenge him would put a end to their political career.

Unless, of course, they had won. Would Thatcher's political career have survived if she had lost the leadership election?
There can only be a leadership election if there are two or more candidates. If there was not a strong enough member of the Labour party to oppose Brown then the lack of an election can hardly be considered Brown's fault.
Brown is a political thug. I'm sure there were others well capable of taking the leadership but Brown had been promised it by Bliar... despite Bliar denying that he would do other than the full term :shock:
ERR...where was you on election day then...MR Blair made it quite clear from the onset, that if re-elected it would be his last term in office and he would not see it through to another general election... At the very least get your facts right.
The facts are right. The Conservatives ran their campaign on "Vote Blair, get Brown" which was denied emphatically by the Labour machine. Seems the Conservatives were right after all

GnV

Sex God

1 Feb 2009

Quote by northwest-cpl
I'm sure there were others well capable of taking the leadership but Brown had been promised it by Bliar... despite Bliar denying that he would do other than the full term :shock:

So why didn't any of these better people stand? Surely not because they put their own career in front of their beliefs?
That of course is a question for them, not me. Or, in the words of Sir Ian Richardson in House of Cards "You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment"

northwest____cpl

Sex God

1 Feb 2009

Quote by GnV
That of course is a question for them, not me.

So in that case, since you don't seem to be in the inner circle of knowledge, or are not prepared to pass on what you learned there, why keep harping on about it?
Brown was unopposed in the Labour leadership selection process. He is therefore Prime Minister until another political party has a majority. Then the leader of that party will be Prime Minister. And a few years down the line we'll see if anything has changed for the ordinary person living in the UK.

Theladyisaminx

Sex God

1 Feb 2009

Quote by kentswingers777
I'm really not sure what substance(s) some of you are on but let me say this..

The same could be said for you ;-)
Quote by GnV
I have fought against Socialism and Governance by a Labour led administration since I joined the Conservatives at the age of 18. That, and that alone, is my clear motive for what is described by others as an "anti-British" campaign.

You should have fucked off to France when you were 18 then
Quote by GnV
The fact I now live in France (which is essentially a socialist, Catholic Country) has nothing whatsoever to do with me abhorring the Commissar Brown and his feeble machinations at saving the world from financial crisis whilst at the same time selling the people of Britain a dead donkey.

And he's Prime Minister in case it had escaped your attention :roll:
I always thought a Prime Minister was one that was elected, by due process. Not one that was " given " the job.
Still will not be too long to wait, for him to kicked out of office.
It is funny that you preach you only get out of life what you put in through hard work and no hand outs from the government unless of course it is a tory government. ok I understand now.
I will clarify what I said above I was not against giving the chance to people that had paid rents for numerous years to qualify but 6 years for full discounts was a joke.
She gave to the people then to keep power without any thought for the future of the next generations that have no chance of affordable homes.
She introduced this a year after she first got into power and my view is that it was done to secured that the working classes gave her the next vote. I think people that think she done that for the best of the people are blinkered and she had no consideration for the future of this country.

GnV

Sex God

1 Feb 2009

Quote by northwest-cpl
That of course is a question for them, not me.

So in that case, since you don't seem to be in the inner circle of knowledge, or are not prepared to pass on what you learned there, why keep harping on about it?
you asked a question, I responded
Brown was unopposed in the Labour leadership selection process. He is therefore Prime Minister until another political party has a majority. Then the leader of that party will be Prime Minister. And a few years down the line we'll see if anything has changed for the ordinary person living in the UK.

Naughty_Wigan_Couple

Sex God

1 Feb 2009

Yet another thread coming very close to being locked, with the usual childish remarks and personal digs being thrown in.
Keep it non-personal and do not start being offensive or abusive to other members or its locked

GnV

Sex God

1 Feb 2009

Quote by Steve
I do believe you were the one who made it personal by making comment about not knowing what substance(s) some people are on.....
well of course, I forgot you are so perfect in every way and never make anything personal
:laughabove: :laughabove:
Whatever you say
:doh: my post was meant to be insolent not humorous :grin:

Unknown User

26 Jul 2013

Bumped****

GnV

Sex God

27 Jul 2013

Quote by Paddy
Bumped****

Pourquoi